Seeing a lack of competition in many of the health law’s online insurance marketplaces, Hillary Clinton, President Obama and much of the Democratic Party are calling for more government, not less.
Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement will almost certainly have to change to survive. The two parties agree that for too many people, health plans in the individual insurance market are still too expensive and inaccessible.
The hits just keep on coming for Obamacare. It is increasingly difficult to find people in support of the healthcare reform law as it currently exists. Though, the NY Times is truthfully just calling for more Obamacare, specifically a “public option”, which will be bankrolled by the taxpayer. Once again, ZeroHedge said it best:
But with most insurers around the country complaining that they’re losing $100’s of millions on the Obamacare exchanges, it’s no wonder that Senate Democrats would call on the only investors in the world that are willing to consistently lose money offering a service: the American taxpayer. If at first you don’t succeed just throw more tax dollars at it.
The entire crux of my article detailing my own experience with the healthcare law was the principle that young healthy males, the demographic needed to purchase health insurance to make the exchanges sustainable, has only been disincentivized by the law to purchase insurance. Furthermore, some questioned my original commentary on Obamacare abuse, stating that they didn’t believe abuse of the system is as widespread as I alluded:
A lot of them didn’t even bother to repurchase insurance; they paid the penalty because it was cheaper. If they get hurt or sick, they could THEN sign up for health insurance, because Obamacare made pricing on pre-existing conditions illegal. They figure they’ll just pay the price of a policy whenever they actually need it, not a second before.
However, those exact concerns were addressed by the NY Times, who quoted Obamacare administrator Andrew M. Slavitt:
Andrew M. Slavitt, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the administration was taking steps to ensure “a stable, sustainable marketplace” — by increasing payments to insurers for “high-cost enrollees” and by curbing any abuse of “special enrollment periods” by people who sign up for coverage after they become sick. In addition, federal officials are redoubling efforts to sign up young adults.
“The subsidies were not generous enough. The penalties for not getting insurance were not stiff enough. And we don’t have enough young healthy people in the exchanges.”
Even Hillary Clinton has been forced to campaign on a similar platform of an Obamacare overhaul, and has stated as much during the debates, while Donald Trump countered with a platform of “repeal and replace”. Minnesota’s Democratic governor has come out railing the health law as “no longer affordable”, and next year, a large percentage of Obamacare consumers will only have one available choice in the public exchanges. I live in constant fear of my health plan being cancelled, and under no circumstance will I buy a policy in the exchange which is more than ever liable to be rolled down by the insurer.
And yet, the worst part of the law came from the recent Podesta email leaks. It appears that both the Obama administration and a potential future Clinton administration used their position of authority to influence the Supreme Court decisions on the law, notably the opinions of Chief Justice John Roberts. Below is an excerpt:
For Obamacare, the hits just seem to keep on coming. It is difficult to see the law as a success, yet there are plenty who just want to expand upon its already monumental failure, and continue laying off the price tag on the taxpayer. This total lack of awareness on the budget is precisely why the nation is currently facing an ever-increasing debt calamity, and it seems no one running the country has any interest in doing anything but more of the same.
It would be funny… if it weren’t so sad.